More on the All-Upper-Case Name

 

Image via Wikipedia

 

For at least 15 years, I have subscribed to the theory that the names “Alfred Adask” and “ALFRED N ADASK” usually signify not only two different entities–but two kinds of entities.  I know that that “Alfred Adask” is the proper name for a living man (me).  I strongly suspect that the name “ALFRED N ADASK” signifies some sort of estate, account or legal fiction–something other than the living man “Alfred Adask”.

Some people think that theory is nonsense and I don’t much blame ‘em.  After 15 years of embracing that theory, I still can’t prove it.  But on the other hand, after 15 years of advancing that theory, no one has (to my knowledge) disproved that theory.

Here’s an email from one of my radio and/or blog audience that questions the theory.  My email reply follows.

Al,
I was listening to The Rule of Law (http://www.ruleoflawradio.com/) this evening and a caller called in about the ALL CAPS thing. I don’t know if you listen to this show or not.
Well, Randy Kelton said, “That’s that Al Adask stuff.” This is the second time I have heard Randy say this. (The first time was about a year and a half ago.) In any case, Eddie Craig, another of the broadcast hosts, said that he has done computer programming “all over the country” on legal documents and he attested to the “fact” that computers are all programmed to CAPITALIZE ALL NAMES for clarity.
I emailed him that this is ludicrous because if this was the case, then ALL OTHER WORDS WOULD BE CAPITALIZED FOR CLARITY TOO. Furthermore, I pointed out that this implies that no one can read the lower case English alphabet thus adding in a contradiction.
Deborah Stevens went on to re-enforce Eddie’s position by saying that NAMES are ALL CAPS because people get upset when one or more letters of their names are capitalized when they should not be and vice versa.
Randy then came back on and said that there are no letters of incorporation for an ALL CAPS NAME and that maybe the courts are just acting like a person is a corporation as a deception. He had a point in my opinion.
I am more in your camp on this. I do congratulate The Rule of Law for their fine use of statutory written law, which they stick to, but I do believe you are spot on about the things you talk about.
Still, Randy put a lingering question in my mind about the “missing” documents of incorporation. So I ask you if you will please drop me a line with your opinion concerning this, or perhaps discuss it in one of your broadcasts.
Thanks.
R.
—Dan

Hi Dan,

First, I’m told that Randy Kelton thinks I’m crazy.  According to listeners, he’s said so a couple of times on his radio program.

Well, I’m not nuts.  But I may be mistaken about the all-upper case names.

Second, the all-caps name argument is a theory.  I’ve never once presented it as an absolute truth.

If I recall correctly, I first advanced that hypothesis back about A.D. 1994.  After 16 years of research, I can’t prove that it’s true.  On the other hand, after 16 years of research, I’ve seen nothing to prove it’s false.

But I have seen a few things that make me think that the all-upper-case name theory is correct:

1.  Back about A.D. 1993, a court case passed over my desk in which three judges were being sued for some offense or another.  I think the case was from the 1980s.  I can’t recall the details of the case and it galls me to admit that I’ve somehow lost that case over the years.

But what I do remember is that the three judges (defendants) had their names styled on the case in their proper, capitalized names rather than the “conventional” all-upper-case format.  The fact that three defendant judges had managed to cause their case to be styled in their proper names rather than the all-upper-case names did not prove that there was a significant legal difference between the two formats.  But that’s when I began to suspect there might be a big difference between “ADASK” and “Adask”.

2.  I used the publish the AntiShyster News Magazine and while I did, I studied typography.  I learned and know that the reason we use a mix of upper-case and lower case letters is that they actually aidcomprehension. This additional clarity has been recognized since the time of Gutenberg.

For example, which is easier to read:

a) “THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPED OVER THE LAZY DOGS,”

or

b) “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dogs”?

The answer’s apparent to most people.  It’s far easier to read text using lower case letters rather than all-upper-case.

Just in case the difference in “readability” between an all-upper-case sentence and a capitalized/lower case sentence isn’t clear, he’s a pair of “identical” paragraphs.  It’s obvious that the all-upper-case paragraph is much harder to read.

a. NOTE THAT WHEN WE USE ALL-UPPER-CASE LETTERS, WE LOSE THE “DESCENDERS”–THE LINES ON THE Q, J, P, G, AND Y THAT “DESCEND BELOW THE LINE” ON WHICH THE TEXT APPEARS.  WHILE WE HAVE THOSE “DESCENDERS” (AND OCCASIONAL CAPITAL LETTERS) EACH WORD TAKES ON A PARTICULAR PHYSICAL “FORM” THAT READERS RECOGNIZE WITHOUT ACTUALLY READING EVERY LETTER.  FOR EXAMPLE, READERS CAN DISTINGUISH THE WORD “DOG” FROM THE WORD “CAT” NOT MERELY BY THE INDIVIDUAL LETTERS BY BY THE “FORM” OF THE WORDS.  THIS ISN’T PATRIOT THEORY.  THIS IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE AMONG TYPOGRAPHERS. 

The previous paragraph is not only almost painful to read, it is physically incapable of communicating the central idea:  that “dog” and “cat” differ not only by letter but by form.  Clearly, “DOG” and “CAT” do not differ by form and must be read, letter-by-letter, to determine their meaning.

Here’s that same paragraph written in a mix of capitalized words and lower-case letters:

b.  Note that when we use all-upper-case letters, we lose the “descenders”– the lines on the q, j, p, g, and y that “descend below the “line” on which the text appears.  While we have have those “descender” (and occasional Capital letters) each word takes on a particular, physical “form” that readers learn to recognize without actually reading every letter.  For example, readers tend to distinguish between the words “dog” and “cat” not merely by the letters but by the “form” of the words. The word “dog” goes up in the front and down at the back.  The word “cat” begins in the “middle” and then goes up in the back.  This notion about word forms being more easily recognized with lower case letters isn’t patriot theory.  This understanding has been common knowledge among typographers for several centuries.

While reading the text in all upper-case letters is almost painful to read, the text in lower case letters is practically pleasurable.

Thus, the contention that the all-upper-case letters (like “ALFRED N ADASK”) are used for the sake of clarity is simply false.  It’s a pretext.  It’s a bunch of crap.

In fact, the all-upper-case words and names are harder to read and more likely to generate data entry errors by typists.  No small thing in world where data entry errors can send a guided missile to a particular target or cause a horrendous mistake.

So why (as programmer Eddie Craig admitted) does our government insist on using all-upper-case names when they should know that this format reduces clarity, inhibits communication and increases the probability of error?

The previous question isn’t proof that the all-upper-case names signify something other than the natural man, but it’s hard to suppose that the government is truly dumb enough to insist on using the all-upper-case names and incur the resulting typological errors–unless government had some compelling, ulterior reason to do so.  (Oooo–an “ulterior reason”!  A conspiracy theory, hmm?  What fun!)

3. Texas (and probably every other state) has a law that declares what curriculum that teachers must teach children in every grade (1 through 12).  I’ve read that law (or parts of it).  I can’t remember the name of the law.  If you ask any Texas schoolteacher, they should be able to name that law.

Texas teachers are required by that law to teach 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade children to recognize the difference between a noun and a proper noun (proper name).  The Texas teachers are required by law to teach the children that all proper nouns are capitalized while regular nouns are not. Thus, when the children read “See Spot run!  Run Spot, run!” they are taught by law to recognize that the word “See” is capitalized to mark the first word of a new sentence and that the capitalized noun “Spot” is a proper noun (proper name) intended to signify a proper person, place of being (in this example, a family dog named “Spot”).

On the other hand, if the children read “See spot run” they might be a little confused since the word “spot” is not capitalized.  They’d have to wonder if the word “spot” was accidentally not capitalized or if it’s just a regular noun that identifies a stain that might be “running” on someone’s shirt.

Texas children are compelled by law to learn that “Spot” and “spot” are two entirely different kinds of words that signify entirely different kinds of entities.

So far as I know, there’s no proviso in Texas law that compels kids to learn that “Spot” and “SPOT” are both proper nouns which signify the proper names of people, entities or places.

So why, pray tell, does government compel children by law to learn that “Spot” (but definitely not “spot”–and probably not “SPOT”) is a proper noun/name, and then turn around to cause all adults to presume that governmental use of “SPOT” also signifies a proper name?

If “SPOT” is a proper name, why aren’t they teaching that fact to our children?  Could it be that they don’t teach the kids that “SPOT” is a proper name because its not a proper name?  Because it signifies something other than a living being?

Again, the fact that the law requires children to be taught the difference between “spot” and “Spot” is not proof that there’s something suspicious going on with “SPOT”.  But it is odd.

4.  So far as I know, all the names on tombstones are in all-upper-case letters.  This format may be caused only by the difficulty in sculpting lower-case letters (and their “descenders”) into stone.  But it may also be a grammatical convention that signals that here lies the estate of the decedent “SPOT” rather than signalling that the actual, living being whose proper name is “Spot” is buried alive about six feet below the headstone.

Again, the fact that all or nearly all tombstones are engraved with names in all-upper-case letters is not proof that the name “SPOT” signifies something other than the proper name “Spot”.  But it’s another anecdote; another leaf in the breeze that suggests that “SPOT” is not “Spot”.

5.  Look at your drivers license, so-so security card, credit cards, name on your checking account and checks, birth certificate, mortgage, passport and virtually every document issued by the government.  How many documents can you find that seemingly identify you–a living man–that are printed your proper name (as law requires children be taught)?  Any?

I’ve seen a couple of exceptions over the years.  I saw one man’s SS card that carried his name capitalized rather than all upper case.  I’ve seen a birth certificate that carried a proper name rather than the all-upper-case name.  But, so far as I know, those exceptions are so rare that they are more likely to be data entry errors than governmentally-mandated format.

So far as I know, it’s virtually impossible to get a government ID that carries my proper name (“Alfred Adask”) rather than the all-upper-case name (“ALFRED N ADASK”).  That’s true in Texas and, so far as I know, every other state and territory in this country.

I’m 65 years old.  I’ve lived in a number of states over the years and had 3 passports, drivers licenses from at least four different states, bank accounts in at least four states, and I can’t recall a single instance when those documents were issued in my proper, capitalized name.  If the two names “Alfred Adask” and “ALFRED N ADASK” are both proper nouns that signify the same living man (me), wouldn’t the law of averages suggest that somewhere, sometime, some state or bank would’ve issued some identification or bank account or utility bill or something in my proper, capitalized name (“Adask”) rather than the in the all-upper-case name (“ADASK”)?

The consistency . . . the universality . . . of the application of the all-upper-case name tends to indicate that the all-upper-case name must signifies something other than the living man signified by a proper (capitalized) name.

Given that we are required by law to learn the difference between a regular and proper nouns, given that typographers have understood for centuries that all-upper-case words are simply harder to read, if the all-upper-case name (“ADASK”) and the proper name (“Adask”) both signified the same living man, why haven’t we found at least one city, county, bank, state or federal agency that’s decided to issue documents to the proper name (“Adask”) rather than the all-upper-case name (“ADASK”)?    If the names mean the same thing, if there’s no difference between those names, why don’t we see a mix of some states, counties, cities etc. using “Adask” while other use “ADASK”?  It’s like flipping a coin.  Sometimes it comes up heads; sometimes tails.  But if it comes up heads 1,000 consecutive times, if there’s not something strange about the coin.  When it comes to “flipping” IDs, time after time, the IDs come up “all-upper-case” rather than “capitalized”.  Why?

I can think of only one reason: “ADASK” signifies something significantly different than “Adask”.

6.  So far as I know, all corporate charters are denominated in an all-upper-case name.  That is, while IBM may use the trademark ”International Business Machines,” the name on the charter creating that corporation is “INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES”–not “International Business Machines”.  I could be wrong but, so far as I know, the official names given to all corporation are always formatted in all-upper-case letters.

Is that format merely a custom, or is that format intended to signal that the all-upper-case name is intended to signify some entity other than a proper, living man?

I don’t know.  But if “SPOT” and “Spot” both signify the same living dog, then we might expect to find corporate charters which named the corporation with capitalized rather than all-upper-case names.  I certainly haven’t studied all or even many corporate charters, so I could be wrong.  But so far as I know, the official name of a corporation (legal fiction) is always spelled out in all-upper-case letters.

If “always” is true, then there should be reason for the consistent use of all-upper-case names to identify corporations and distinguish them from the proper names of living men, women, children, places, etc.

7.  Go to court.  Tell the judge that you insist that the case against you styled “STATE OF TEXAS vs DANIEL STEVENS” be re-styled to reflect your proper name (“Daniel Stevens”).  Tell the judge you want the change based on your sincerely-held religious beliefs or some such.  Lemme know if you can persuade the judge to agree to the change.  I’ll bet the judge won’t change the style of the case.

But if the judge does agree to allow the case style to be changed from “DANIEL STEVENS” to “Daniel Stevens” (if he agrees that the two names are synonymous) make sure he also agrees that “DANIEL STEVENS” and “Daniel Stevens” both identify the same living man.

If you can document that a judge agrees to such changes, I’ll buy you a big dinner. I don’t think you can get it done.

8.  In A.D. 2002, I was arrested without warrant, extradited from Texas without warrant and ultimately held for 344 days in a level-5, maximum security in Missouri based on allegations that I’d committed two felonies.

As my defense, I created evidence that 1) I was not a fiduciary in this matter; and 2) my true name was “Alfred Adask” and that “ALFRED N ADASK” was merely an alias.  That was my entire defense against two felonies–and I created that defense after I’d been arrested and incarcerated.

But I was never actually charged with a crime, I was never tried for a crime, I was never convicted of a crime.  I was not even given a probable cause hearing.  When my probable cause hearing was finally scheduled (for my 344th day in captivity), the judge wouldn’t even allow me into his courtroom but instead (after trying unsuccessfully to trick me into taking a public defender) simply dismissed the case and ordered me released from my cell.

Yes, I spent 344 days in the slammer without ever being charged with a crime.  That’s hard to describe as a victory.  But on the other hand, except for my two-prong defense, I would probably be a convicted felon today and possibly still be liable to piss into a cup whenever my parole officer thought it amusing.

How many pro se’s do you suppose there are in this country who have stopped the prosecution of two alleged felonies after they’d already been arrested?  Not many–maybe none, other than me.

How many pro se’s do you suppose there are who’ve stopped the prosecution of two felonies after they’ve not only been arrested but extradited to some other state?  I don’t believe anyone other than me has achieved that result.

Sure, you can find plenty of legal reform gurus who, for a modest sum, will show you how to beat a seat belt ticket in traffic court.  But how many gurus are out there who can claim to have actually stopped prosecution of two felonies–after they were arrested and incarcerated?   Answer:  Other than me–Zee-ro.

How’d I stop that prosecution?  Again, I created evidence that 1) I was not a fiduciary in this matter; and 2) that “ADASK” was a mere alias for “Adask”.  Those two lines of defense are intimately related and I’ve explained them in depth on my blog at http://adask.wordpress.com/2010/10/13/alfred-adask-aka-alfred-n-adask-acting-at-arms-length/#more-1827

And make no mistake, I didn’t create this two-pronged defense because I’m so smart.  I was already on the right track toward understanding the significance of fiduciary relationships and upper-case-names, but my defense “happened” by the Grace of God.  I didn’t cause my defense; He did.

That is, I knew to sign my name “at arm’s length,” to defeat the presumption that I was a fiduciary.  But I quibbled with the Dallas County extradition officer on three separate hearings about waiving extradition because the extradition document identified the alleged defendant as “ALFRED N ADASK”.  I insisted that the document include my proper name “Alfred Adask”.

The marginally-literate extradition officer eventually offered to write “True name ‘Alfred Adask’ a/k/a ‘ALFRED N ADASK’” on the waiver.  I don’t believe for one minute that he realized what he was writing.  I didn’t fully understand it at the time, either, but I sensed it was “good enough” so I agreed to waive an extradition hearing on condition that I be extradited “at arm’s length” and that the “system” agreed that “ADASK” was merely an alias for “Adask” and thus both names signified the same living man.

I have no doubt that our Father YHWH Elohiym caused the extradition officer to write that “ADASK” was a mere alias for “Adask”.  I wouldn’t have thought to do it.  But in retrospect, that was one of the most important insights of my life.

I didn’t fully understand the significance of what had been written on my waiver of extradition until several years after I was released.  I’m not sure that I fully understand my own successful defense even today.  I think I do, but I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if our Father YHWH Elohiym lets me see some more insight into this matter over the next several years.

But–by creating evidence I was not a fiduciary, I stripped the court of its ability to presume that the man “Adask” acted as fiduciary for, and represented, the thing-defendant named “ADASK”.  By creating evidence that “ADASK” was a mere alias for “Adask,” I stripped the court of the “ADASK” entity as a defendant.  It appears that the court could not proceed in this matter without a “legal entity” (“ADASK”; something other than a living man) for a defendant.

I’ve seen the two-name theory work to stop two felonies.  I’ve only seen it work that one time.  That anecdote proves nothing.  But I’ve seen it work to stop two felonies being prosecuted by a county government that assumed enormous financial liability by holding me for 344 days without even charging me with a crime.  There is no freakin’ way that they would’ve released me (and accepted that considerable financial liability) if they’d had any way to overcome my two, seemingly simple lines of defense.

In sum, I can’t prove that “Adask” and “ADASK” are presumed to signify two entirely different entities.  But I don’t know of anyone who can prove that they don’t–and I’ve advanced this theory for 15 years and somebody in government should’ve defeated it long ago if it was false.

I am about 97% confident that the name “ADASK” is presumed by government to signify an estate, an account or a legal fiction–something, anything other than a living man made in our Father YHWH Elohiym’s image and endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

I can’t prove that contention, but I’ve seen a bunch of evidence that walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc.

I think it is, in fact, a “DUCK”.

Alfred Adask

About these ads